about the fly
@Hesham - Regarding the article you asked me to read --
#1 "the larvae (maggots) all showed antibacterial properties (except that of the Queensland fruit fly control).
"As did all the adult fly species, including the Queensland fruit fly" - No mention of what antibacterial properties were present, or what, if anything, they might cure, and certainly no mention that any were found on the wings, either left or right, and specifically no mention that the disease was located on one wing and the cure on the other.
#2 Maggots, not flies were the subject of this paragraph you specifically highlighted
#3 Male Fruit fly ejaculate was the third topic covered, which I would certainly hope never to find in my Courvoisier.
The article went on to say:
"With regard to worldly matters: this happened to the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him). With regard to agriculture, medicine, carpentry, etc., he was like all other people. Allaah did not tell us that he was sent to us as a businessman or a farmer or a carpenter or a doctor. His mistakes in these fields are quite natural and do not impact on his Message at all." (emphasis, mine)
"The Prophet did make errors in the past in some scientific fields...." (again, emphasis, mine)
just an advice.. don't use Zaghlool el Nagar articles as a scientific evidence for the koran is right because things like splitting the moon and dipping the fly in milk and all the other stuff he used to write about has been proven to be complete hoax.
he himself stopped using it and every Muslim cleric who respects himself now avoids discussing science when trying to promote islam for fearof being publicly impressed
1. How to know? The first "human" wasn't modern man (homo sapiens) and was most likely hard to distinguish from a bipedal chimp or gorilla. Why? Do you have an answer that will stand up to scientific scrutiny?
2. Perhaps or perhaps not. Does it really matter since there's no way to verify much of what was said about them?
3. Just because you can form a grammatical sentence, that by itself doesn't make the sentence meaningful. We are here. What we make ourselves into reflects our purpose on Earth.
1) Contrary to Thomas' answer, we do know about the origins of humans, it's just that your question is worded in a way that is rooted in a misconception. If you were to trace any one person's ancestory back to the origins of life, you'd observe a gradual progression backwards from modern humans to the origin species. There was never any point at which one of our ancestors had a child that looked nothing like them. Speciation occurs very slowly, such that no living member of a species would ever be different enough from a different generation that they wouldn't be able to breed together. This is no more controversial a proposition than saying that you are just as human as your grandparents, although there doubtless exists some genetic variation between you. Thus, on our imaginary backwards review of ancestors, there's no set point at which you'd be able to say 'these are the first humans', but rather a fluid progression away from 'human'. If we could made a specimen of pre-humans with a modern human, we might perhaps be able to draw a more-or-less distinct boundary by seeing how far back we had to go to find non-reproductive pairings, but that's clearly not possible.
2) Muhammed's historical reality is more or less certain, Jesus' is fairly certain, though largely fabricated, elaborated and distorted, and Moses' is doubtful. Many of the supposed deeds, sayings and miracles of Jesus can be shown to be 'recycled' from other traditions, which would have been widely circulated in the cultural milieau at the time of Christianity's coalesence. Available historical evidence suggests that Jesus was a historical figure who is completely different that our modern conception of him, which was largely constructed by Paul of Tarsus some decades after his death. The real Jesus was probably an apocalyptic Jewish street preacher of a type common in that area of the Roman empire. As for Moses, there is no record of him or anyone like him outside Judeo-Christian sources, and almost all of the things attributed to him can be found in other religious texts predating the Torah.
3) Whatever. No one can answer that for you.
Absolutely! I don't care whether you can spell psychiatrist or not, you have my vote!